In the 2005 case of Keshia Cherie Ashford Dixon v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a defendant's silence during police questioning before being read their Miranda rights could be used against them in court. The case involved Dixon, who was questioned by police about her involvement in a bank robbery but remained silent when asked if she prayed to God for forgiveness for her actions. During trial, prosecutors pointed out this silence as an indication of guilt. The Supreme Court held that because Dixon had not been arrested or taken into custody at the time of questioning and thus not entitled to a Miranda warning yet, her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated by using her pre-arrest silence as evidence of guilt.

In the dissenting opinion for Keshia Cherie Ashford Dixon v. United States, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was a departure from precedent and an unnecessary expansion of federal power over state courts. He contended that it is not within the purview of federal law to dictate how state courts should interpret their own laws or rules, especially when there are no constitutional issues at stake. Moreover, he believed that this case did not involve any significant threat to public safety or national security which could justify such intrusion into states' rights. The defendant had already served her sentence and posed no further risk to society; thus, according to Justice Stevens, there was no compelling reason for the Supreme Court's intervention in this matter.